1851. 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
227 
gards the question as of “ little importance” at the time 
he wrote. Mr. Stevens thinks it is thus “ impliedly 
said that he was not a pure Short-horn.” He therefore 
proceeds to bring forward what he deems “ full and con¬ 
clusive proof of the purity of Hubback’s blood.” Ilis 
first reference is to the pedigree of that animal in the 
Herd Book; but admitting the correctness of the pedi¬ 
gree as there given, it does not prove the point assumed. 
The pedigree shows that Hubback was descended in part 
from the stocks of Sir James Penniman and Sir Wm. 
St. Quintin, but it is not proved that these were pure 
Short-horns. 
On the point of there having been Kyloe (or West- 
Highland) blood in Hubback, to which the controver¬ 
sy” alluded to by Mr. Berry chiefly related, Mr. Stevens 
cites an “account” which Mr. Coates, the author of 
the Herd-Book, says was given to him by Mr. John 
Hunter, son of the breeder of the animal in question. 
Mr. Hunter says he “remembers” the cow which his 
father bred, that was the dam of Hubback, and that he 
does not “ believe” she had any Kyloe blood in her. 
Nowit is obvious that the value of this “belief” de¬ 
pends on Mr. Hunter’s opportunities for obtaining 
correct information. Hubback was calved in 1777, and 
the paper signed by Mr. Hunter, is dated July 6, 1822 
—forty-five years after Hubback was produced. Of 
course, the correctness of Mr..H.’s impressions, depends 
much on his age at the time the animals were bred. How 
old was he when his father owned the dam of Hubback, 
which he says he remembers? 
Mr. Stevens says (page 121,) “ All the authorities for 
the impurity of Hubback’s blood shall be quoted.” 
He proceeds to quote from Major Rudd and others, but 
leaves out the following expression in one of Major R.’s 
letters, of which he takes a part; “ I am in possession 
of evidence which establishes the fact that the dam of 
Hubback owed her propensity to fatten to an admixture 
of Kyloe blood.” [Letter in Farmers’ Journal , dated 
June 28, 1821—copied in American Farmer , vol. 4, p. 
174.] 
But even Mr. Hutchinson, who is much relied on by 
Mr. Stevens to make out his case, did not deny, but 
rather admitted at the time of the controversy, that 
Hubback had Kyloe blood. Mr. H.’s letter of which 
Mr. Stevens has quoted a part (page 125,) in which the 
former aims to show that his own stock is related to Hub¬ 
bard, commences thus: “ The bull Hubback being now 
pronounced the grand cause of improvement , instead 
of the main root of the Ketton and Barmtons,so celebrated 
above all other Short-horns,'—it behoves every breeder 
to prove his own stock related to this wonderful animal, 
if he can.” He then shows that Hubback was used in., 
Mr. Fawcett’s and Mr. Waistell’s herds before Mr. 
Charles Colling bought him, and towards the close of 
his letter, argues that there were other strains of valua¬ 
ble blood in the Short-horns, besides that from Hub- 
back, saying that it was “most wonderful” that “no 
virtue is allowed to be found in any blood, but in this 
drop of the Kyloe in the veins of Hubback /” [Letter 
under date of Oct. 10, 1821, in Farmers’ Journal — 
copied into Am. Farmer, vol. 4, p. 228.] 
Another admission of Mr. Hutchinson’s, of a similar 
character to the above, is referred to in a letter of Mr. 
Rooke, given from the Farmers’ Journal, in 4th vol. of 
the Am. Farmer , p. 166. 
After a full examination of what Mr. Stevens says on 
this point, we think the conclusion will be that Hub¬ 
back’s pedigree is as much a subject of doubt as when 
Mr. Berry left it, 1835. 
8. The last point is the Galloway cross. This stock, 
called the alloy, Mr. Stevens contends “'had no value 
except as conferred by the Short-horn blood in them, 
and in spite of the Galloway strain.” 
We will occupy no more space with this part of the 
subject than is necessary to show the view taken of it by 
those who have had the best opportunities of knowing 
the facts. We will omit what Mr. Berry says in praise 
of the alloy , simply referring to one or two witnesses to 
corroborate his statements. 
Mr. Stevens, as we have said before, makes frequent 
reference to Mr. John Hutchinson; it is evident, there¬ 
fore, that he considers him authority, and he could not 
consistently appeal from authority which Mr. H. would 
recommend. Now, in relation to a point connected with 
the pedigree of the bull Sir Leoline, bred by Mr. H., he 
referred to Major Rudd, and sent a letter on the subject 
that he received from Major R., to the Farmers’ Jour - 
nal, which he prefaced by saying—“ it is from a gentle¬ 
man whose intimacy with the Messrs. Colling, and whose 
experience of their stock entitles him to possess the best 
information and most accurate experimental knowledge 
of their comparative merits’ 
In this letter Major. Rudd speaks of the cow Lady, 
whose progeny some writer had attempted to depreciate 
in value on account of their Galloway blood, and says— 
“ I have yet to learn that this blood has been of any in¬ 
jury to L$dy or her descendants; for I can truly de¬ 
clare, that after having had some experience during ten 
years with different branches of the Ketton stock, I give 
the preference to the stock descended from Lady, —and I 
know also, that they are held in the highest estimation 
by Mr. Charles Colling.” [This letter is dated May 31, 
1821, and is copied in the Am. Farmer, \6U iv., p. 149.] 
It should be noticed that Major Rudd was for many 
years one of the leading breeders of Short-horns. At 
Charles Colling’s sale in 1810, he purchased the highest 
priced animals in the herd, with the exception of Comet; 
viz: Lily at 410 guineas, Countess at 400, Petrarch at 
365, and Peeress at 170 guineas. Countess was out of 
Lady, and of course had the alloy. It appears Major 
Rudd always adhered to the opinion above expressed, in 
regard to the superiority of that stock. In 1824, after 
the stock had been in his possession fourteen years, wri¬ 
ting to John Hare Powell of Philadelphia, he says—“ I 
have long enjoyed the friendship and intimacy of Mr. 
Charles Colling. * * * * Residing at no great dis¬ 
tance from him, I was in the constant habit of witnessing 
his experiments, and when his celebrated stock was sold, 
in the year 1810, I became the principal purchaser.” 
In a subsequent letter of the same year, written to Mr. 
Powell he says—“ You know that I purchased Mr. 
Charles Colling’s best cows. * * * * Our best breeds 
of horses for the carriage, the road, the chase, &c.—our 
cattle, sheep, pigs and dogs, have all derived their ira- 
improvement from judicious crossing. * * * You 
know that I have had long experience on these subjects, 
